Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Harris

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 21, 2019

Tommie Lee Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K. Harris, Correctional Officer, individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

          Argued and Submitted February 6, 2019, Pasadena, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03104-ODW-E

          Daniel A. Arellano (argued), Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          Todd Grabarsky (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson and Misha D. Igra, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; Monica N. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee.

          Before: Ronald M. Gould and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges, and Algenon L. Marbley, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY [**]

         Prisoner Civil Rights

         The panel reversed the district court's revocation of a state prisoner's in forma pauperis status on the ground that he had three prior strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and remanded.

         One of plaintiff's prior cases was dismissed because, after concluding that he failed to state a federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Another was dismissed because plaintiff failed to serve one defendant, and several other defendants enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity.

         The panel held that because the prior cases were not dismissed on grounds enumerated in § 1915(g), they did not qualify as strikes. Following the D.C. Circuit's decision in Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the panel first held that a dismissal based on a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is not an enumerated ground under § 1915(g). The panel further held that dismissal due to a failure to serve is plainly not a dismissal on the ground that the suit was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. It is therefore not a strike under § 1915(g). Finally, the panel held that the language and structure of the Prison Litigation Reform Act make clear that immunity-based dismissals generally do not fall within § 1915(g).

          OPINION

          NGUYEN, CIRCUIT JUDGE:

         Tommie Lee Harris, a state prisoner, appeals the district court's decision revoking his in forma pauperis ("IFP") status on the ground that he had three prior strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). One of Harris's prior cases was dismissed because, after concluding that he failed to state a federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Another was dismissed because Harris failed to serve one defendant, and several other defendants enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity. We hold that because these cases were not dismissed on grounds enumerated in § 1915(g), they do not qualify as strikes. We therefore reverse and remand.

         I.

         Harris filed the current lawsuit against a correctional officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for use of excessive force. Harris also filed for IFP status. The district court found that Harris had already accrued three strikes and revoked his IFP status. Harris appeals. He admits that he has two strikes[1]under the PLRA but argues that two of his other prior lawsuits are not strikes, Harris v. Bick, No. 2:98-cv-01197-LKK-DAD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 1998) and Harris v. Nielsen, No. 2:98-mc-00225-WBS-GGH (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2001).

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.